I remember reading about a balloonist in the 80’s who was trying to circumnavigate the world.
He crossed into soviet airspace over Romania accidentally and was shot down.
But that wasn’t the best part lol… the pilots who shot him down recieved medals for “bravery in the face of extreme danger”
L O L !
Another case where a balloon was mistaken as an “UFO”. Lol
Well Garg, those pilots WERE flying Soviet aircraft. Pretty brave if you ask me.
Land/Sea/Air
-
@ncscswitch:
I still like flying more that sailing, so I would take the F-22.
You gotta be kidding… If I am going to war, I want SURVIVABILITY in my aircraft, not ultra high maintenance/primary target.
Give me a good old fashioned Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt 2. I want my engines priotected from ground fire, the ability to hug the terrain and avoid the faster jets, and the ability to blow aircraft, tank OR boat away with that GAU 8-A… 4200 RPM of 30mm armor piercing rounds… plus whatever I ahve strapped under my wings.There are no documented air to air kills with an A-10. The GAU cannon isn’t designed to shoot airplanes anyways.
Also, while the F-22 is a primary target, it is a safe target. An A-10 has a chance of getting shot down much greater than that of a F-22.
-
There are no documented air to air kills with an A-10. The GAU cannon isn’t designed to shoot airplanes anyways.
Two Iraqi Helos were shot down by A-10s in the 1st gulf war, I think thats technicaly two Air to Air kills. :-D
-
Pearl handled revolvers arn’t designed for ground to air combat, but did that stop General Patton from using them effectively in WWII?
-
I believe that whole incident was made up for the movie, and even if it wasn’t, did he shoot down any German planes?
About the helicopters, I wasn’t thinking of them when I made that statement, but I guess they do count. It also reminds me of the F-15E which shot one down with a laser guided bomb.
-
Pearl handled revolvers arn’t designed for ground to air combat, but did that stop General Patton from using them effectively in WWII?
“They’re Ivory. Only a pimp from a cheap New Orelans Whore House would carry a pearl handled pistol”
-
i would say a airplane is very dangerous to be in if your fighting an organized military and not a backward third world country……
I mean say hello to Bamse Surface to air system… (or an older favorite of the russians, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashtan )
Bamse; http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/rbs23.htm
-
I will be on foot with a SAW, a LAW, and a Stinger. 8-)
-
I once heard that the average battlefield lifetime of a tank was 2-3 minutes. I don’t know if that was WW2, and in large tank-to-tank engagements, or what, but it kind of makes sense. A tank is a big, relatively slow target that can do a lot of damage - it’s the first thing I’d try to blow up from the other side!
Obviously it depends on the kind of tank and what kind of weapons the enemy has, but I’d still rather be in any kind of a plane than in a tank on the ground.
-
Must be WW2 because a modern M1 tank had never been destroyed in combat.
-
@M36:
Must be WW2 because a modern M1 tank had never been destroyed in combat.
Incorrect, we lost several in GW1.
-
Not to enemy fire.
-
I suggest you check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams
At least one destruction (catastrophic fire) occurred from enemy fire. It wasn’t, however, from an enemy tank.
-
@M36:
Not to enemy fire.
You did not specify to enemy fire, you said “destroyed in combat”, and there HAVE been M1-S destroyed. :roll:
However there have been ADDITIONAL M1’s (and crew members inside them) killed as a result of enemy action in just hte past couple of years.
-
insurgents blow up our M1’s all the time now. :x
the iranians made that new ied that can easily punch through its armor. :x
-
We’re fighting a new war here, people. :-P
I’m in the navy, so yes, Bush Jr. is my boss. I’ve come to realize, however, (at least in the Navy’s case) that terrorists and insurgents are not something we are readily able to fight. Not many other country’s militaries are capable of standing toe-to-toe with us and fighting on even ground anymore, so IEDs and other such booby-traps are the sort of tactics they use. :|
-
Just like we used guerilla tactics against the British…
Without which we would NEVER have won our independence.The difference between Terrorist and Patriot is…
Which one, in the light of history, WINS the fight agains their foe.But I STILL want that boat if it is a desert war, otherwise I want that A-10, with a full tank of gas, a full magazine, and all the hard points under my wings bristling with weapons…
-
Oh, that’s exactly how it is. No arguments here; guerrilla tactics helped ensure our victory in the Revolutionary War.
Unfortunately, the tables have since turned. We may have defeated the Brits largely due to guerrilla tactics, but it was the same situation that caused our downfall in Vietnam. We were the “world power” patrolling the streets, etc., in all our glory, and the NVA were employing guerrilla tactics, laying booby-traps, and the like in order to defeat us…
-
It is always much easier to create chaos than it is to create order - that’s why the side going for order and control will usually lose to the side using destabilizing tactics.
-
Very good point there. Maybe that can be used as fuel for the anti-war effort… :-D
-
Hey,
My American Military History Prof. broke world powers into 3 groups Super Powers SP (Like the US today), Revisionary powers REVP(Like Italy today), and lastly Revolutionary powers REP(Like Iraq today).
He then broke it down into formulas to determine who would win in and vs mode:
SP VS REVP = SP wins
REVP VS REP = REP wins
SP VS REP = REP wins
SP VS SP = ARMAGEDDONFor me it sure made foreign policy easy when it came to deploying troops.
Suggested Topics
